Doctors are evaluated on patient throughput, not the depth of their engagement. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies create and perfect new products for patients but often neglect their preferences, stated needs, and lived experiences in recruitment and development efforts.

Real-world evidence (RWE), a promising frontier in health settings from innovation to care decisions, is poised to change this dynamic. If we are open to acting upon it, it can become the basis for centering efforts directly on the patient experience.

As a father and caregiver, I’ve walked this journey firsthand. My child’s health challenges have brought me face-to-face with the limitations of a system that often measures success in drugs prescribed rather than resolutions achieved. I’ve seen the toll that rushed consultations and fragmented care take on families searching for answers. It is a stark reminder that even as the science of medicine advances, the art of listening lags.

Recently, we visited a doctor’s office to consult about our young adult’s rare disease. We hired a patient advocate to bridge the chasm between clinical expertise and lived experience. They translate medical jargon, connect patients with appropriate specialists, and, most importantly, validate the patient’s voice.

Listening to the advocate prompted me to ask a critical question about this complex clinical case: “What is the underlying cause of the symptoms?”When our non-medically trained patient advocate suggested surgery to address the root causes of our child’s GI problems, one doctor we consulted, who came from a noted teaching hospital, confronted us.

“Who are you going to believe,” he asked. A patient or me?”  Ultimately, the patient advocate, who consulted with other patients and their physicians, was spot-on. The operation took place; the outcome was outstanding. That is the power of RWE as a catalyst for objective conversation.

Real-World Evidence: A Catalyst for Change

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines RWE as “the clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD).” These data include electronic health records, insurance claims, and patient-generated information from mobile health apps and wearable devices. Unlike randomized controlled trials, which too often exclude diverse populations, RWE provides a more comprehensive view of how treatments perform in real-world settings.

Physicians face immense pressure to see more patients in less time. Emergency physicians, for example, are expected to see 2.4 to 3.3 patients per hour, while family doctors might handle 3.3 patients or more per hour in high-volume settings. These metrics may boost productivity, yet at the same time, often come at the expense of meaningful patient interactions. The result? Missed opportunities to understand the full scope of a patient’s experience and even the true nature of the problem.

Empowering Patients and Data

One possible example of how RWE can prioritize the patient’s voice is StuffThatWorks, a platform founded by Yael Elish, one of the founders and executives of the consumer navigational company WAZE. Like WAZE, StuffThatWorks uses AI-powered crowdsourcing to connect individuals with similar diagnoses, enabling them to share experiences and generate actionable insights into treatments and outcomes. It’s a patient-led approach that democratizes data collection, making it richer and more representative. For sponsors of medical trials, the platform offers the chance to harness a massive customer focus group, gaining access to the voices of millions of people struggling with health concerns ranging from treatment to anxiety around illness to the cost burden of sickness.

StuffThatWorks – collaborating with companies and patient organizations, recently began collaborating with The Marfan Foundation, highlighting the potential to engage non-profits in leveraging RWE to benefit global disease communities. Similarly,  The StuffThatWorks partnership with Advanced Clinical, a major research services and clinical resourcing organization, allows project teams to engage with patients directly through surveys and focus groups, enhancing patient participation in clinical research. These initiatives demonstrate the transformative power of intentionally centering patient experiences in healthcare innovation.

More and more, leading academic hospitals such as Weil Cornell Medical Center’s Genetics and Personalized Cancer Prevention Department in New York City are recognizing that care extends beyond cutting-edge medicine and outstanding physicians—it calls for experts who have been on frontlines—as patients and counselors.

“I feel fortunate to bring my real-world experience as a patient to my work as a provider,” says Emily Epstein, LMSW, Genetic Social Worker/Clinical Behavioral Health Care Specialist at Weill Cornell. “This deep understanding of the patient journey inspired me to create a role where I can offer the very support I once advocated for, rooted in true empathy and knowledge. Real-world patient experience is essential to transforming healthcare, infusing it with humanity, compassion, and meaningful change—ensuring we honor and serve both the science of medicine and humanity at its heart.”

Chief Patient Officers

Several pharmaceutical and clinical research companies have established Chief Patient Officer (CPO) roles, recognizing the importance of patient engagement. Parexel, for example, appointed Stacy Hurt as a CPO to lead patient advocacy efforts. Hurt says, “Parexel’s priority focus is on providing patient-centered solutions that enhance the clinical trial experience and make participation more accessible to everyone.”  A health professional who is both a cancer survivor and a caregiver for her son, Hurt brings a patient’s perspective to the work.  Companies like Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Astellas have also created similar roles, signaling a broader industry commitment toward integrating patient insights into drug development.

The National Health Council emphasizes that as RWE becomes a cornerstone of health decision-making, the experience and needs of patients must be prioritized, not addressed as an afterthought. Integrating RWE into the health system can enhance treatment efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. However, this requires more than technological innovation; it demands a cultural shift within the healthcare ecosystem.

Now What?

Reflecting on my child’s medical journey and the rise of patient advocacy communities that began to take form during the HIV epidemic and that patient community’s vocal demand to be included in conversations about drug development and news flow, it’s clear that the journey toward patient-centered care is still at an awkward early stage.

Platforms like StuffThatWorks offer a glimpse into what’s possible when prioritizing patient voices. By fostering communities where individuals can share their experiences, these tools generate valuable data and empower patients to take an active role in their care.

Let us commit to creating a health system where every patient’s story is heard, valued, and acted upon. By doing so, we honor the science of medicine and humanity at its heart.

The post Real-World Evidence Unlocks Consumer Voice to Improve Care appeared first on Medika Life.

Along that difficult road is support – a place of respite from the complex environment innovators face – the community of HITLAB, the Health Innovation Technology Lab.  HITLAB is a leading academic research institution focused on improving global healthcare through innovation and technology and housed within Columbia University in New York City and Chaired by Stan Kachnowski, Ph.D. MPA, HITLAB has become a haven for health, technology, and design champions to find common ground.

“The HITLAB Innovation Summit is a dynamic platform where healthcare leaders, entrepreneurs, and innovators come together to forge groundbreaking solutions,” reflects Dr. Kachnowski.  “It fosters collaboration, sparks creativity, and drives healthcare transformation through the power of technology and innovation.”

HITLAB academic roots at Columbia set a tone for research and training.  New York City has emerged as a hub for digital health innovation. It is home to more and more startups drawing on the resources of the nation’s financial capital, a close connection to academic medical centers and talent. The Big Apple – like Bean Town Boston – is a strategic epicenter to explore how emerging technologies such as augmented intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) find a meeting point with telehealth and remote patient monitoring through rigorous research, analysis, and design thinking.

Centered Around Cutting-Edge Solutions

At its annual HITLAB Innovators Summit 2023, conversations center around cutting-edge solutions for the digital health community to overcome social determinants of health and unite disparate hospitals’ information systems. The gathering is a digital health sector roadmap to advance health access, address challenges, and improve patient outcomes.

Attendees of this intimate Summit that combines keynotes, panel conversations and scheduling networking are fans!

“The HITLAB Innovation Summit is a game-changer for the healthcare industry. The convergence of technology, innovation, and expertise creates an electric environment that fuels groundbreaking ideas and fosters meaningful collaborations,” says John Anderson, chief technology officer HealthTech Innovations.

While other like-forums have evolved into co-counseling sessions on how to survive EHRs and the heavy life to onboard the 500-pound EPIC gorilla, attendees at HITLAB also learn about “EPIC envy” – where small and community health centers that don’t have the resources to afford this state-of-the-art software find alternative paths tapping into technologies to piece together other ways to track patient care and outcomes.

Also, in hearing from major biopharmaceutical companies such as Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others, digital health innovators can reflect on the importance of ample science to shift the conversation from hype to hope and fact-based cautious optimism.  In turn, big pharma share openly on the main stage how science alone – absent of technology – can fall short in meeting patient information, adherence and care needs. 

As in previous years, the HITLAB Innovation Summit 2023 brings together experts across the health innovation ecosystem, including clinical trials, pharma, private equity, public health, engineering, design, and data science. The diverse community is seeking solutions that integrate health tech – digital therapeutics, health information, and smart devices meaningfully. The gathering’s success lies in bridging the gap between patients, payers, product innovators, policymakers and providers. It enables these communities to connect and accelerate practical solutions that can be implemented in real-world settings.

Presenters are Category Leaders

Presenters are bold and blunt. From Bill Taranto, President, Merck Global Health Initiative Fund, to Dr. David Berger, CEO, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, to David Klein, CEO and Co-founder, Click Therapeutics, to Tim McCarthy, Head of Digital Sciences & Translational Imaging, Pfizer and representatives from public health, venture capital finance, legal and regulatory; the three-day gathering offers a bolus of category knowledge.

“The time is now for this space – a revolution in medicine is about to happen that will shift care to center around patients,” emphasizes Click Founder and CEO David Klein. 

Klein was among the key voices discussing integrating therapeutic choices and that physicians would look more holistically in treating patients with drugs, digital therapeutics and behavioral guidance – focusing on people care satisfaction.  Digital therapeutics must model its efforts akin to biotechnology driven by evidence-based clinical outcomes looking beyond the 510K regulatory milestone for approval.

Actionable Insights

The insights shared will guide business planning decisions among newcomers and veterans to the category.  Among the noted attendees at this year’s HITLAB Innovation Summit is Amir Kishon, Ph.D., CEO of Twig Health. Kishon was among the early pioneers in the sector.

“Healthcare as a regulated industry is somewhat apprehensive about innovation. It is in its DNA. Digital health is challenging this predisposition and the question I ask myself is when this industry will tip to appreciate that innovation is a friend. We are getting there,” notes Kishon.

The program conducts studies and clinical trials that set out the scientific methodology to assess digital health interventions’ efficacy, usability, and safety.  It’s now acknowledged that Food and Drug Administration 510K approval to market for digital applications and therapies is a necessary regulatory threshold; the barrier to success is convincing science as a solid foundation for access that requires payer and provider support and a clear pathway to reimbursement.

Bottomline – it’s about reimbursement and ease of use. In the session What’s Needed for Sustainable Adoption of Digital Health American Medical Association Vice President for Digital Health Strategy, Meg Baron, offered very clear insight into how digital health enterprises can better integrate into the physician’s workflow – the “return on health” to show value.

Beyond the Summit, HITLAB promotes entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital health space. HITLAB is multi-faceted – professional development, accelerator and crowd-sources community for startups and early-stage companies, helping them navigate the complex healthcare landscape, access funding opportunities, and refine their product or service offerings.

In incubating promising ideas, HITLAB fuels the growth of the digital health ecosystem, fostering the development of transformative solutions that address unmet needs and drive positive change. Put the fall meeting on your calendars!

The post HITLAB Innovation June Summit is a Power Hit for Digital Health Change Agents appeared first on Medika Life.

So why are we dropping like flies and why are so many young and otherwise perfectly healthy people suffering conditions that usually affect the aged or overstressed, overweight over 40, business sector? It can only be one of two things. Either it’s the after-effects of Covid, or perhaps it’s the Covid vaccine we’ve been force-fed, or perhaps a two-for-one deal. Covid’s side effects amplified by the vaccine? All good questions that science will provide (hopefully) answers for going forward.

Public opinion is firmly on the side of the vaccines as the root cause. Are they right? That’s what we are going to explore in this article, and if you’ll forgive the tone, it’s a lighter one, albeit mostly serious..

The numbers game

I love the meme below, from Twitter, which pretty accurately reflects the current mood of the masses and who doesn’t need a smile to break the gloom, unless of course you’re one of the unfortunates who were forced into the vaccine through unofficial mandates. Yes, our governments didn’t actually have the balls to come right out and mandate the vaccines, they used pressure from third parties. Want to travel, eat, get medical attention, go to school, find housing, etc. etc. then you’ll need that vaccine. Sorry.

There is little doubt that the vaccines are related to serious adverse events and death and the numbers far exceed any previously acceptable safety levels for a vaccine, by a country mile. Globally, we are probably seeing thousands of vaccine related deaths a day. Before you roll your eyes and reject this hypothesis, remember we’ve vaccinated more than 13,156,047,747 people and that tally climbs daily, according to the WHO Covid dashboard.

That’s more than 13 billion people. Assume 10 thousand deaths a day (a hugely conservative estimate, in my opinion), many of which will fly under the radar and may not be associated with the vaccines – over the course of a year, and you arrive at 3.65 million people. A drop in the ocean in terms of 13 billion. to put it in percentage terms, 1% would represent 131 million people so it is less than 0.03% of that 1%.

In terms of risk for you personally, those numbers amount to 300 adverse reactions for every million shots based on my figures above. For every 3200 shots, someone, somewhere, will die. The current crude birth rate of the world is 16.9 per 1000 population and death rate is 8.8 per 1000 population, so for every 27 people who die per 3200, add on 1 more for the vaccine, or so the figures would suggest.

That sounds absolutely dire and when we look at the reality of these numbers, we wonder why anyone in their right mind would have lined up for the vaccine. [But, remember, in the earlier days of Covid – when we faced the original variant – things look terrifying.] I think what you have just read above, however, requires context. It isn’t as simple as assuming that all deaths post-vaccine are a direct consequence of the vaccine; it is far more nuanced. To form a clear picture of what’s going on we need to understand a few fundamental basics.

Grasping the basics brings the image into focus

Acceptable casualties

There is an important paradox that applies to vaccination (and drug development) that needs to be explained and it’s an unpleasant and harsh reality that applies to medicine. Create a new drug or treatment, and odds are, someone, somewhere will die from it. In many instances, more than one person will die and over the course of a vaccine’s lifetime, many people will be left with severe and permanent side effects, directly ascribed to the vaccine.

This is the cost of doing business with viruses and vaccines are the only currency we currently understand. The risk of the virus versus the risk of the solution. It’s a complex equation to balance, and one that easily tips in favor of the vaccine when we face a really nasty little pathogen, as we assumed in the case of Covid.

There is nothing malicious in this; instead, the complexity of our physiology and our individual medical “uniqueness” is to blame. Medicines cannot be developed to accommodate everyone, and for decades we have accepted these medical casualties as the cost of our attempts to control viruses. Where vaccines prevent disease, reduce transmission, and protect the general population, the cost is considered warranted. In effect, we sanction the loss of life for the group’s safety.

It is these side effects (referred to as SAE’s or adverse events) that have plagued the Covid vaccines remorselessly from day 1.

Separating fact from supposition

Welcome to the world of impossible tasks. To actually prove, beyond any doubt, why a person has suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack or stroke, we need to perform a forensic autopsy to establish the real cause of death. Yes, we know it’s the heart or brain, but why did these organs suddenly, and in the cases of healthy young adults and children, inexplicably, stop working.

There can be two explanations for this: Covid itself or the vaccine. Of course, people tend to look at the vaccines, given their abysmal track records, recorded instances of confirmed injury and death, a list of official SAEs as long as your arm, and the fact that in most instances, those dying have been vaccinated.

Proving this however requires the scientific will and desire to get to the bottom of the huge numbers of excess deaths recorded across the globe. That, and a lot of money, which in theory should be forthcoming from the vaccine manufacturers themselves, but oh, wait. We indemnified them when we defined these products as vaccines, didn’t we?

Where, then, should we turn? Public health-led science cannot help. It is unfortunately as compromised on the vaccine front as the manufacturers, having sold us out early in the pandemic, and asking science to help us validate the consequences of their betrayal, probably isn’t a great selling point. Our only hope rests with politicians. Now before you shake your head in despair and head off to look for a rope, I hope you’ll hear me out.

There is motivation here, political motivation, perhaps of an unprecedented scale. Proving parties guilty of this web of deception and profiteering would end any hopes of reelection for the incumbent politicians who were ensconced in positions of power during the pandemic. In the U.S., the blame rests evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Expose the Covid narrative and you expose the puppeteer. But, U.S. has grown tribal – each party – pointing fingers at the other, rather than rolling up their sleeves to come to an answer.

There is of course another potential explanation for the deaths we are seeing. They could be related to the actual virus. If that is indeed the case, or the main line of thought supported by science, then both industry and the scientific community would be invested up to the hilt in the problem, leaving no stone unturned to prove their science and medicines are not at fault.

Sometimes, not doing anything, is all the evidence one requires to decide where blame lies.

Establishing Covid’s Real Risk

It turns out the SARS-COV2 virus was a bit of a weak link when it comes to “end of world” pathogens. So were we. Unprepared, the planet plunged into chaos in the first few months of the outbreak, fed by a media frenzy warning us of almost certain death and the end of days. The media were, of course, spectacularly wrong and not acting of their own accord, as we’ll discover in the following article. The effects were, however, of the desired nature.

We all cowered in fear, locked away in our homes, waiting for the promised miracle of a vaccine, produced in months and forever immortalized in the Guinness Book of World records. The luxury of time has given us a much clearer picture of the dangers of the virus. The original strain did pose real risks to specific segments of our population. Like viruses do, it rapidly mutated, and Omicron, far more infectious and much less deadly, did in a few months what vaccines had failed to. It eradicated the original strain and rapidly spread a form of immunity and reduced risk throughout communities across the globe.

Omicron was nature’s way of ensuring the virus retained a population to circulate in, trading off its lethalness for infectiousness, and along the way, rendering the vaccines (which we now know were almost hopelessly inadequate) obsolete to all but a handful of people for whom the risk of the vaccine was justified.

The risk/benefit and risk/risk calculation for the mRNA vaccines and the virus’ variant evolution was never considered at any stage of the vaccination campaign. Had it been honestly evaluated, the vaccines would now be ancient history, stockpiled in small quantities for those who needed them. Had more doctors taken the time to research and evaluate the treatments they were offering their patients, far fewer patients would have been encouraged to participate, but doctors did what we did. They trusted the narrative, unlike the purebloods.

Now, lets get the Purebloods!

Not everyone fell for the panic or the panacea of the vaccines. Egged on by conspiracy nuts (some of whom history has vindicated), large groups formed their pandemic narratives, most of which shared one common thread. The vaccines weren’t vaccines (technically accurate) but instead genetic treatments to create a new lizard species, track you while you mow your lawn or sterilize your butt to prevent you from cooking up any more conspiracists. Far-fetched, but intriguing.

Interestingly, recent rumors have emerged from a Pfizer employee suggesting the mRNA vaccines may actually be impacting your ability to procreate. But that’s an as yet unproven allegation and Pfizer, for obvious reasons, is keeping mum and not commenting. The video below, showing an employee that Pfizer has confirmed was working for them, was trending under the hashtag #Pfertility. Gotta love the internet, unless, of course, you’re Albert Bourla.

So, in the closing months of the pandemic, the global goal of vaccinating everyone had failed, despite the best attempts to inject every person on the planet, often multiple times. Recently, in an effort to further use and deplete the vast stockpiles of vaccines the government finds itself stuck with (no refund policy sadly) children have now become the latest focal point, in a campaign supported with yet more scare press from the media and manufactured and mismanaged medical data.

Purebloods had won, or so they thought.

There is actually no escaping the impacts of the mRNA vaccine. Critical mass has been achieved. In other words, we’ve injected a sufficient number of arms to ensure that, in two generations time, everyone will carry traces of the original Covid vaccines in their system. Your pureblood children, or even you, if you’re so disposed, will comingle with the vaccinated and in the heat of the moment, vaccine status will be the last thing on your mind. Trust me.

Need blood? Well then, you’re in luck, as donors happen to donate on a regular basis. Are they screened for the vaccine? Absolutely not, that would be intrusive and an invasion of their privacy, asking for their vaccine status. What kind of world do you think we live in? Seriously. There is a huge and lucrative opportunity here for an “untainted” blood supplier to step into the market, but you didn’t hear it from me.

What many fail to realize is that the spike protein produced by the mRNA injection is a carbon copy of the virus’s spike protein. Assuming, and we are still waiting for science to step in on this, that this is the root cause for all the issues people have with Covid, then those that weren’t vaccinated but contracted Covid, are in exactly the same boat.

And then, lastly, you need to eat, don’t you. Keep a careful eye on that steak you wolf down every week. The label on your slab of beef will very soon display, in really fine print, advice about your dead cow’s treatment with, can you guess? mRNA will be introduced into your food supply and in many instances, you just wont know. Conspiracy? Perhaps, but we know now how those turn out and lets face it, cows are far less resistant to being jabbed than you are.

The point here is that by hook or crook, purebloods will be eradicated and in our technologically advanced society, we won’t have to resort to anything as crude as garlic, stakes (not the cow), or wizardly spells. The mudbloods are coming.

The post Sudden Death, “Purebloods,” Myocarditis and more appeared first on Medika Life.

Claim: The Covid Vaccines contain graphene and will enable people to track you.

There’s so much to unpack in just this one sentence. Just looking at it sounds alarm bells and shouts “conspiracy madness”. People have claimed and denied that the vaccines contain graphene and that they pose a risk to our health since their release. The vaccines, not the graphene. Articles have been published disputing the statement above as complete rubbish. False, they all yell, and yet, look at the following.

In 2022, the European Parliament were asked to respond to the claim of graphene in vaccines. The basic gist of the request went as follows.

A recent investigation by Dr Ricardo Delgado Martin and the technical report by Dr Pablo Campra ‘Detection of graphene in COVID vaccines by micro-Raman spectroscopy’ claim that the COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene. As reported by CORDIS in 2018, a team of researchers has proven that graphene is able to convert electronic signals into signals in the terahertz range, with trillions of cycles per second. The silicon-based electronic components we use today generate clock speeds in the GHz range, where 1 GHz is equal to 1 000 million cycles per second. The scientists showed that graphene can convert signals with these frequencies into signals with frequencies that are thousands of times higher than those created by silicon. Graphene is therefore able to absorb radiation, meaning that, if contained in a vaccine, it would be highly toxic and harmful to human health.

For those who’d like to see the widely disputed research that claimed to have found graphene in the Pfizer vaccine, you can follow this link to read the paper on Research Gate.

So how would anyone set about proving or disproving this claim? Of course, we turn to published peer-reviewed data and research, as well as referencing claims made by the manufacturer, ingredient lists and any other sources we can find. Right off the bat, you can see how using information provided by a party involved in the claim to invalidate it is equivalent to quoting the Bible to prove God’s existence.

Here is an example of how typical fact checking works, provided by Health Feedback disputing the above claim making use of the usual sources. And that, dear reader, is exactly the point at which the wheels come off for the fact checker.

Accepting published research and current medical opinion as gospel. The latter is shaped by the former and disagreeing with it can, in normal times have dire consequences for scientists and medical professionals. In the heat of the pandemic, disputing anything relating to the official Covid narrative was terminal.

In 2023, published scientific research relating to certain topics, notably anything vaccine, Covid or pandemic related, is often selling you a narrative, and it isn’t simply the pharma companies trying to convince you of the safety of their products, it includes scientists who wish to prove the exact opposite. Both camps frequently produce research that is designed to promote a particular viewpoint, rather than further the pursuit of science.

Research, that on closer inspection, is shown for what it is. Data manipulated to achieve a desired outcome with control groups that can, at best, be described as compromised. Again, there are sinners on both sides of the aisle. The problem then, is where does this leave the fact checker, who usually has neither the resources or the knowledge to assess the validity of the papers and research they use to validate or invalidate a claim.

This is a complex and nuanced situation and it is easy to make the wrong call, which is essentially what every fact checker does. Based on what are assumed to be facts, we dispute a claim as false. Been there, got the T-Shirt.

Most fact checkers choose to observe or conform to the status quo. Events transpiring in real time that conflict with published lore are usually ignored. The issue is further complicated by the fact that it is often the institutions with a vested interest in maintaining a narrative that perform the checking. This clear conflict of interest should be sufficient reason for most to dismiss their opinions of of hand.

The net effect, in most instances, is to bury, or at least attempt to bury, claims that may in fact have a basis in truth.

Pandemic fact checking, particularly where it relates to the virus, public health and the vaccines, can in many instances rather be referred to as establishment propaganda. Want an example? Did you know there is an association that regulates members who provide fact checking? Bet you didn’t. Called the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), they offer an extensive database of their members responses to pandemic claims.

Their Coronavirus page, from where you can access their database for the pandemic, boasts the following: 17000 fact checks in 110 countries in 40 languages. I decided to put the system to the test and entered the following text into their search box.

Vaccines do not prevent transmission

This was the response my search returned. The italics and emphasis below are added by the author to highlight just how wonderfully, when it chooses, science can dazzle with bullshit.

[Begin extract] Fact-checked by: Vistinomer

2021/04/19 | North Macedonia

FALSE: A Facebook post claims that vaccines do not protect, do not prevent coronavirus transmission and are experimental.

Explanation: Contrary to claims in the post, according to the World Health Organization, vaccination is a simple, safe, and effective way to protect people from harmful diseases before they come in contact with them. It is also incorrect to claim that vaccines do not prevent transmission. The well-established German epidemiological institute “Robert Koch” announced ten days ago that people vaccinated against the coronavirus are no longer transmitters of the virus. It is also incorrect to claim that vaccines are experimental. For vaccines that are approved by both the WHO and the national regulations of each country separately, their experimental phase is over and they are completely safe to use. [End extract]

You can see how quoting the World Health Organization to validate a claim about public health brings us back nicely to the Bible analogy. We knew, and have known, since the early release of the vaccines that they didn’t in fact prevent transmission. It was one of the primary reasons Medika petitioned aggressively against mandates. As far as “experimental status”, the vaccines definitely qualify.

Safety checking and trials were woefully inadequate, lacking proper controls and pushed through to accommodate panicking governments across the globe who sacrificed safety in exchange for expediency. mRNA is still in evaluation technology in the real world of medicine, and yes, you were unofficially “experimented” on. That is what happens when you participate in the largest global clinical trial ever undertaken.

So can we no longer trust the fact checker or were they acting in good faith on fraudulent information offered by the WHO, the Robert Koch Institute, governments and the vaccine companies? Was this real science or rushed science with flawed conclusions? All of the above or none or some? We don’t know, but time has allowed us to see through the lie. Not much use if you took the vaccine based on similar advice, only to discover later, you’d been misled.

Pity the Patient

It’s possibly the worst time in our societies history to be classified as a patient, and at some point in your life, that will apply to you, if it doesn’t yet. Over the course of the pandemic we were all considered patients, and in may aspects, we had the option of choice as far as treatments were concerned either removed, mandated or prescribed.

For those of us who tried to exercise critical thought and make informed choices with regards Covid treatments and vaccinations, we found ourselves mired in a pool of misinformation, fact-checking and the draconian public narrative. Nothing has changed. We still face this problem as we gradually emerge from three years of often self-inflicted viral misery, with society now fragmented by vaccine status and two very differing opinions on science.

So, dear patient, just where do you turn for help and advice. The truth is, I cannot tell you and anyone suggesting they have discovered the font of truth in 2023 should be avoided at all costs. Your best hope is to revert to good old fashioned critical thinking and apply it to as much information as you can find on a particular topic.

Oh, and if they’re trying to sell you something – RUN.

The post Fact Checking Vaccine Claims With Flawed Science: True appeared first on Medika Life.

Particularly now, when it looks increasing likely that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their GOF research (US funded) on coronaviruses led to this pandemic. Even the ex-CDC Director has come out in favor of the lab leak theory. So, is this a good idea?

Can I Get a NO? A Loud, Resounding, Absolute NO.

Not in any rational, sane world that is intent on survival of the species, can we permit the continuance of this kind of research in its current form. Especially in the kinds of laboratories we currently use, where apparently, upgrading the walls to Swiss cheese would offer better protection than is currently available. Especially in the hands of scientists, politicians, media and a pharmaceutical industry all of whom have just schooled us on how to manipulate the human race.

How many millions more may pay with their lives for the greed, avarice or incompetence of the few? We haven’t yet held these individuals to account for the 2019 pandemic and here we are again, back on the roundabout, hell bent on laying the groundwork for a second one.

And that is really where the problem lies. It isn’t the science that’s flawed. GOF is a really useful tool, but like the most deadly assault rifle, it can be used for protection or for mass extinction. It depends on the hand that wields it and science has been coopted by individuals and companies that look only to profit and the pursuits of their political masters. In the process, we die, by the millions.

To depress you even further, we cannot walk this back. Not ever. The gene-manipulating genie is out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back. This type of research will still continue, even if it is outlawed at the highest levels. The potential rewards, which are huge, far outweigh the risks. The only solution is to manage it, somehow.

How Do We Fix This?

Elon, so glad you stopped by, as you, or a group of individuals (we understand not everyone can buy the bluebird of happiness on a whim) may very well hold the key to our continued existence, and no, I am not suggesting relocating Pfizer, Moderna and the rest of their motley crew doing pathogen research to Mars, although I’d probably chip in myself for the rocket fuel for that trip.

We know that the current logistical management for GOF needs to be better. Unfortunately, we cannot contain the viruses we work on safely within a facility without them escaping; even our highest levels of security, BSL4 labs, are breached. Every year, incidents occur across the globe, and we may even have the next potential pandemic underway as I write, that is how frequently it happens.

Logic dictates we either stop the practice (not happening) or take steps to ensure we don’t kill the entire global population, unintentionally, or otherwise. To do this, it is critical we remove the danger from populated areas.

We need to establish a global research facility, one of a kind, independently monitored and audited, that is as far removed from proximity to humanity as possible. The middle of the desert springs to mind, a dedicated center for viral research where, in the event of a breach, only the unfortunate scientists pay the price for their carelessness.

To overcome the strain of lengthy periods of isolation, a facility constructed for these purposes could be expanded to include schooling and retail therapy, allowing scientists to pursue their passions and research in a semblance of normality. Most of the pioneers and researchers engaged in Gain of Function are driven by the science, they are passionate and focused, and again, it is their work that is co-opted, rarely the individual.

Quarantines would apply to all personnel leaving the facility, requiring a five-day plus furlough in a Trump Hotel built five miles away. Driverless Teslas, repurposed for deliveries, would alleviate the need for contact with the outside world, and Elon, you could use this as a dry run for Mars.

Humor aside though, the idea has merit and may very well offer a way out of our current predicament. The only other viable alternative is to temporarily halt all research until we are able to fully automate facilities handling dangerous viruses. By that, I mean no human interaction at all. Experiments could be performed remotely, utilizing robotics. We are technically capable of this, but it would be incredibly expensive (I wonder who has a few billion in pandemic profits lying around), restricting who would be able to utilize this kind of technology.

Great Kindness or Greed? We All Hope the Former

Humans are capable of great kindness and innovation, but the danger with this type of research always defaults to the involvement of the human element. We are prone to making mistakes, ask all the unfortunate and very dead researchers working with these pathogens when they escape. Realistically, if safety is our paramount concern, and it should be, our only viable option is to remove GOF research from its proximity to our populations. Back to option 1.

This discussion is unfolding right now, preempted by the letter I referred to above. Perhaps the logic here was to get their case heard before all the wheels come off. When evidence surfaces, and it will, to corroborate the lab leak theory for the SARS virus, all bets will be off. The backlash will be spectacular and science, unfortunately will pay the price. Science we desperately need to cure the ills that have been ailing us for generations.

Villagers and their torches aren’t particular about what they set fire to, and in this instance, they have good cause and science will burn.

Any solution that removes the risk of exposure to pathogens from accidental spillage, cannot obviously account for nefarious intentions, sadly something the industry is rife with. Another thorn in the side of ethical science that needs to be overcome and security at this remote facility would need to be ironclad.

GOF Can Result in Life-Saving Drugs or Danger

We’d like to spark a proper conversation on this subject, involving people who have the resources (Elon, you still here?) to implement solutions that are in the interest of both science and public safety. The two parties must find a way to safely coexist.

It is also worth mentioning that gain of function is far more than what the public perceives it to be. The technology is critical to developing new drugs, new cancer treatments and many other practical uses that do not focus on weaponizing pathogens. Making a virus more deadly may utilize Gain of Function technology, but it represents only a fraction of the industry’s use of the technology.

If you have thoughts on the matter or would like to publish something relating to this, please feel free to reach out to Medika Life via DMs on Twitter. You’ll find us hugely receptive.

The post Elon Musk, Can You Save Us From Covid 2.0? appeared first on Medika Life.

A video has appeared on Twitter in the last few hours, recorded by Project Veritas. The video purports to show a Pfizer Director, who would appear intoxicated, discussing enhancing the Covid virus with a view to developing future vaccines and directed evolution. The video in question is shown below. Before you view this, a warning.

I questioned the video, particularly the employment status of the individual claiming to be Jordon Walker, MD. The evidence offered by Project Veritas for Jordon Walker’s Pfizer credentials comes directly from James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, and was accompanied by the following text. According to O’Keefe;

“We’ve obtained internal Pfizer docs verifying Jordan Walker as Pfizer Director, Research & Development Strategic Operations. Graduated Yale 2013, Doctor Med at U of Texas Southwestern medical school. His supervisor reports to Mikael Dolsten who reports to Albert Bourla, CEO.”

The text and images left me far from convinced and I pursued the matter further. There is no image of Jordon Walker to be found online (in itself strange, given his past and medical position) and aside from published research during his years at the University of Texas Southwestern and his internship at Tufts Medical Center, no other footprint can be found for the doctor. Here is a link to his Doximity page (includes the research links) and his current medical license from New York State is shown below.

There is a notable lack of social media for the good doctor, in particular his LinkedIn account which was created and never used, highly unusual for a person in his position. By contrast, a “colleague”, Senior Director Allison Blum who Walker would supposedly report directly to (if he is in fact employed at all by Pfizer), has a typical LinkedIn page that looks like this. I have reached out to Ms. Blum to see if she can in fact validate Walker’s employment in her division and will update the piece, if and when she replies.

Two things are immediately apparent. Jordon Walker is either the most reclusive employee ever employed by Pfizer or he actually doesn’t work there. The other option, of course, is that his data is being meticulously scrubbed as you read this. If he does in fact work for Pfizer, then the content of the video is incredibly concerning and the level of individual employed by Pfizer to address treatments that impact our genome is even more shocking.

Until further evidence presents itself, I would recommend not amplifying this until his position is in fact validated.

Here then the video, as it appeared on Twitter

I will update this article as new information becomes available and I would caution people from placing to much faith in this until such time as conclusive evidence is provided for this gentleman’s actual place of employment and if he is, in fact, Jordon Walker, MD.

You can read Pfizer’s response here

Update: 01/26/23

In the course of trying to find a connection between Walker and Pfizer, searches on Yahoo turned this up. The page it leads to on LinkedIn has been deleted. The identical result shows on both Yahoo and DuckDuckGo but has been removed from Google, indicating some form of scrub.

A twitter user just linked us to the fantastic Brian O’Shea who specializes in tracking individuals and he has written a fantastically detailed article that would indicate beyond doubt that Jordon Walker is in fact (although probably no longer) in the employ of Pfizer. Great piece of investigative journalism which you can find here. The image below is from his article.

In response to this, congratulations are due to Project Veritas for an exceptionally revealing piece of journalism and I would now freely encourage you to share both Brian’s article above as proof of the video and the Veritas piece itself. Thanks to Annette Gartland for bringing the article to my attention.

Update: 01/27/23

I’ve just seen the follow up video of Jordon Walker being pursued by James O’Keefe, a day after the events that transpired on the video above. Walker was lured out on the pretense of a date, and states on the video below that he was trying to impress the person he met. This effectively invalidates any of the claims made on the video, offering Pfizer an out, which I have no doubt they will pursue.

We need to get the truth out, but in doing so, we need to preserve our values of decency. There are ways to achieve this without stooping to these levels, reminiscent of the paparazzi pursing a celebrity. Medika believes in honest reporting with verifiable sources and information that is not obtained under false pretenses. We stoop to their level and all is lost.

The post Video of Jordon Walker, Supposed Pfizer Researcher, Goes Viral appeared first on Medika Life.

In response to the MEP’s question, if the Pfizer mRNA vaccine had ever been tested before its release to the general public on its ability to prevent Covid transmission, Ms. Small responded by admitting it hadn’t. If the comment is accurate, we must determine how this disclosure impacts trust in scientific exchange and public health.

“Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market…No., We have to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.”

Small then continued to justify her answer and you can watch her full response above by forwarding the video to the timestamp of 15.31.

Roos then immediately took to social media at the conclusion of the hearing, questioning on what basis governments within the EU had justified Covid vaccine passports if the vaccine was unable to affect the transmissibility of the virus. The main reason that people were vaccinating to protect each other was based on a fiction.

From a medical perspective, this admission matters tremendously. If the vaccines offered little to no communal benefit of protection against the transmission of the virus, the justification for, for instance, vaccinating school children is questionable. The known risks of the vaccines and listed SAEs far outweigh the benefits to this population.

By extension, the same logic can be applied to young and healthy adults not at risk from any comorbidities. It would appear that the argument offered by Governments and Health bodies for the public to act in the interests of protecting their fellow citizens was nothing less than disingenuous. A fabrication designed to coerce public compliance, exposing yet another fundamental flaw in the global management of the Covid pandemic.

The need for these products in the high-risk population is clear. Covid can kill and it is critical that public health institutions enjoy the trust of the public for the health system to function effectively. Otherwise, communication breaks down, creating chaos. To discover more truths and fictions relating to mRNA vaccines, read this piece.

The post Pfizer Confirms mRNA Vaccine Never Tested for Preventing COVID Transmission appeared first on Medika Life.

It is critical that this oversight be completely divested of any interests within the pharmaceutical industry, beyond the reach of lobbyists and political influence. Not, you’ll readily agree, an easy ask in the world we currently occupy. Two things need to occur, preferably globally, to ensure our survival as a species is not compromised by the never-ending quest for profits and industry glory. We need to create the oversight and pharma needs to be forced into legal compliance.

And these things need to happen soon!

Where does the danger lie?

Contrary to the populist nonsense circulating on social media and right-wing conspiracy websites, mRNA vaccines don’t pose a risk to our DNA. At least not yet. The current slew of mRNA vaccines is unable to engage the mechanisms required to alter our DNA. It’s a complex topic which I’ve tried to simplify in another article you can reference here if it’s of interest.

That isn’t to say, however, that all future development of mRNA technology will obey the same delivery paths or mechanisms of action, but for now, the mRNA vaccines, in their current forms, cannot interact with your DNA. You can happily get vaccinated without the risk of growing a tail.

The real danger currently lies with another branch of pharma that is going to be at the forefront of new medicines for a while to come as we rage an ongoing war against our most deadly enemy. The virus.

I am, of course referring to antivirals. drugs that are designed to deliver their payloads to and engage with our genetic machinery. While these medicines, take for instance the antivirals developed for AIDS, can be hugely effective and lifesaving, they pose a very real risk of interfering negatively with our genetic code, or DNA. Not all antivirals have this ability, but many do and many newer drugs undoubtedly will.

Not only our DNA is at risk here. Antivirals work by mutating the DNA of the virus they’re designed to attack. The risk exists that resulting mutations can create drug-resistant new strains or variants of a virus, and some experts believe insufficient data exist on drugs like Merck’s new antiviral to combat Covid, Molnupiravir, to allow the drug to be released into the market. The UK has recently approved the drug for use.

Currently, we have to accept the assurances of the pharmaceutical companies, the same companies that develop these drugs, that the treatments are, in fact, safe.

Read that sentence again. There is no world in which that statement makes logical, sane sense or fosters an environment of trust and transparency. We don’t self-police well and if you don’t understand why then drop by your local police precinct and ask them to explain it to you. We simply cannot be trusted, and when the stakes are as high as they are in the world of big pharma, even independent bodies struggle to maintain any autonomy.

What about Federal and Government bodies

Doesn’t the FDA look out for our safety, you ask? Technically, yes, however their admirable mission statements and what actually occurs in practice, are two totally different realities. Woefully understaffed departments, political pressure, pharma lobbyists, and staff, many of whom owe their training and loyalty to large pharma companies, having served as interns or former employees, oversee clinical trials and approval processes, all contributing to potential breakdowns in safety protocols.

The recent scandal involving a whistleblower and the falsification and fabrication of results from a company engaged in submitting Covid vaccine data highlights the problem. Complaints around possible breaches in protocols designed to protect the public are often simply ignored. Lack of resources and manpower are usually assigned the blame and this instance was no exception.

Despite this, systems like the FDA still offer the public a certain level of protection and if they fail, as callous as it may sound, a worst-case scenario results in a few hundred deaths. Until now, that is. Treatments that can affect our DNA work differently. They operate silently and can take years, even decades before we are faced with the consequences. Genetic mutations may be passed on to descendants rather than affecting the patient directly.

Without wanting to sound melodramatic, the biggest challenge we will face in the coming decades will be ensuring the integrity of our human DNA. The reason is simple.

Antiviral medications work. There are very few effective mechanisms to combat viruses and antivirals are one of our best hopes to interfere with the virus’s interaction with our cells. Now, mRNA technology has also entered the fray, and will, undoubtedly stray into the world of DNA before long. It’s a sensible place to go if you’re looking to cure all that ails humanity.

While targetted DNA treatments may benefit the patient of the future, we need to ensure now that in our haste to produce profits, we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Oversight is required.

If not governments, where do we turn?

Does the World Health Organization (WHO) still hold enough credibility globally to be entrusted with a task like this? It’s a difficult question to answer. They botched the Covid response spectacularly, erring on the side of cautious statements when they could have closed the whole planet down in days, buying us time to contain the virus.

They failed to address flawed policies on aerosolized particles when presented with new evidence that contradicted 50-year-old flawed science, evidence that affected how the virus was being distributed. The list goes on, and yet, what other option are we left with?

Only the WHO is placed in a position to engage globally with all pharmaceutical companies. New treatments in development or undergoing clinical trials that target our DNA or may, in any remote fashion, risk contaminating our DNA, would require full WHO approval prior to having a license granted for taking the treatment to market.

It’s by no means a clean or perfect solution, but it would offer a starting point. A place that we could look to and say with confidence, we are doing something to ensure we don’t accidentally self-destruct as a species. A hugely embarrassing and eminently avoidable scenario, but only if we take action to avoid it.

Don’t blame the Tech

Our levels of technology are expanding exponentially, allowing us a deeper and more complex understanding of diseases and viruses on a cellular level. Nanotechnology enables us to deliver microscopic particles to cells, that even five years ago, were only pipe dreams, dreamt by molecular biologists with a vision of what the future might hold. The wonders that await us in the next decade could very well change the face of medicine forever.

Eradication of cancer and other genetic conditions are now real possibilities thanks to technologies like mRNA treatments. Antivirals may very well finally achieve the unthinkable, a world free of influenza. It’s heady times for the industry, exciting times and times for great fortunes to be made, gambled, and lost. Therein lies the biggest danger.

It is not technology, in and of itself, that poses the risk, but rather what we choose to do with it, and given our history as a species, we know we cannot leave that to chance.

The post Does Pharma Need Independent DNA Oversight? appeared first on Medika Life.